User talk:24.29.22.9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you insist on claiming bias in Evolution, then please use the standard Wikipedia template {{NPOV}} and then, most importantly, discuss it on Talk:Evolution. Leaving a note without discussing is not going to change anything, and will be reverted very soon. FreplySpang (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi 24.29.22.9, with regards to adding the note warning the reader about bias: firstly, please have a look at our policy on the neutral point of view. Secondly, note that edit warring over it's inclusion is not allowed (see WP:3RR). Thridly, please justify why you want to "warn" the reader on the talk page before you add a note. (additionally, there is a template for doing this Template:POV). Regards, Mikker ... 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have temporarily blocked you from editing Wikipedia due to your violation of the three-revert rule, about which you were warned above. You are free to return when the block expires. When you edit, please don't repeatedly make the same edit if others are removing it. That's not how Wikipedia works. I'm especially disappointed to see you continually reinserting this text without once commenting on the discussion page. If others are opposing your edit, please discuss it. Also, as explained to you above, disclaimers like this do not belong in articles. Two users already informed you of the existence of the proper template and pointed you to the relevant policies. If you attempt to force your way without trying to understand what others are telling you and without any discussion of controversial actions, your edits will not long last and you will not find editing very satisfying. Please take a short break from editing to reflect on more productive ways to work with others. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them or to help you learn how Wikipedia works. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't see the messages. Yet you surely must have gotten the notice alerting you that you had received new messages. Either you ignored it and the alert followed you from page to page, or you went to your talk page but did not read the messages. In the future, please be sure to read the messages people leave for you—blocking you from editing should not be the only way to get through to you. I don’t see why a vague reference to the talk page could explain what you thought was not neutral about the article. If one does not feel an article is neutral, the first step one should do is to make oneself familiar with WP:NPOV. Please read our neutral point of view policy, in particular WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, prior to pursuing a complaint. The next step is to bring specific objections to the talk page; often the matter can be resolved through discussion, either through subsequent editing of the article or through consensus that the article is already neutral. Oftentimes an editor with a specific political or religious agenda may to try to influence articles, but their claims of bias may be judged to be exaggerated by the other editors. I must say that I do feel that the Evolution article is well-written, comprehensive, and neutral as it stands. It it is a featured article and has been through considerable scrutiny by both those who do believe in science and those who don’t. I believe the current article describes the science of it quite well, while also acknowledging that it conflicts with literal interpretations of the mythologies of several religions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)